Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-03740
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning it can be refiled — because plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali failed to move his lawsuit forward.
Plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali, whose lawsuit against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services has been dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning he is not automatically barred from refiling, but the opinion does not discuss whether any deadlines to refile may have passed.
What happened
In Ali v. State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services (File No. 25-CV-3740), plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali sued the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services in federal court in the District of Minnesota. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prosecute it — meaning he did not take the steps required to keep the case moving through the court system.
Neither party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation within the allowed time period. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation only for clear error — a limited review that looks for obvious mistakes rather than reconsidering the issues from scratch.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and adopted it in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which means Ali is not permanently barred from refiling a lawsuit on the same claims, though any refiling would be subject to applicable rules and deadlines.
The detailed version
This is a short procedural order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Mohamed A. Ali filed suit against the State of Minnesota and Minnesota IT Services (File No. 25-CV-3740). The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 24, 2025, recommending dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a court to dismiss a case involuntarily when the plaintiff fails to prosecute it. No party objected to the R&R within the time permitted by District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Where no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error and adopted the R&R in full.
The action was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the claims, though any future filing would be subject to applicable statutes of limitations and procedural rules. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. The opinion does not address any substantive legal claims made by the plaintiff.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.